U.S. patent application number 11/757213 was filed with the patent office on 2009-02-19 for method and system for visually indicating a replay status of media items on a media device.
This patent application is currently assigned to CONCERT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION. Invention is credited to Waymen J. Askey, Hugh Svendsen.
Application Number | 20090046101 11/757213 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 40362620 |
Filed Date | 2009-02-19 |
United States Patent
Application |
20090046101 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Askey; Waymen J. ; et
al. |
February 19, 2009 |
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VISUALLY INDICATING A REPLAY STATUS OF MEDIA
ITEMS ON A MEDIA DEVICE
Abstract
A computer-implemented method and system are provided for
visually indicating a replay status of media items on a media
device. Aspects of the method and system include displaying in a
graphical user interface (GUI) of the media device a representation
of a first media item; displaying a profile score of the first
media item that is based on user preferences; and displaying a
replay score for the first media item that affects replay of the
first media item.
Inventors: |
Askey; Waymen J.; (Cary,
NC) ; Svendsen; Hugh; (Chapel Hill, NC) |
Correspondence
Address: |
CONCERT TECHNOLOGY AND WITHROW & TERRANOVA
100 REGENCY FOREST DRIVE , SUITE 160
CARY
NC
27518
US
|
Assignee: |
CONCERT TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
Durham
NC
|
Family ID: |
40362620 |
Appl. No.: |
11/757213 |
Filed: |
June 1, 2007 |
Current U.S.
Class: |
345/470 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06F 16/4387 20190101;
G06T 11/60 20130101; G06F 3/0481 20130101; Y10S 715/978 20130101;
G06F 16/9535 20190101; G06F 3/0484 20130101; H04L 67/104 20130101;
G06T 11/206 20130101; H04L 67/306 20130101; G06F 3/0482 20130101;
G06Q 30/02 20130101; G06F 7/08 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
345/470 |
International
Class: |
G06T 11/00 20060101
G06T011/00 |
Claims
1. A computer-implemented method for visually indicating a replay
status of media items on a media device, comprising: displaying in
a graphical user interface (GUI) of the media device a
representation of a first media item; displaying a profile score of
the first media item; and displaying a replay score for the first
media item that affects replay of the first media item.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising
displaying the profile score and the replay score
simultaneously.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising
displaying a plurality of the media items in a playlist along with
corresponding profile scores and replay scores.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3 further comprising
sorting the media items in the playlist based on the profile scores
and the replay scores, wherein the sorting is controlled by the
replay scores.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising
displaying for the first media item, a representation of the replay
score relative to the profile score.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5 further comprising
displaying a graphic representation of at least one of the profile
score and replay score.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6 wherein the graphic
representation includes at least one of a graph and a chart.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7 further comprising:
displaying a first bar graph of the profile score relative to a
maximum profile score; and displaying a second bar graph of the
replay score.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 7 further comprising
displaying a single bar graph having a length indicating the
profile score and a subsection indicating the replay score.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 9 wherein the bar
graph also displays numeric values of both the profile score and
replay score.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 5 further comprising
displaying the profile score and replay score as text.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11 further comprising
displaying the replay score as a percentage of the profile
score.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising:
in response to each one of the media items being played,
calculating a respective replay score for the corresponding media
item if the corresponding media item does not already have a
corresponding replay score; and recalculating the replay scores for
previously played media items.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13 wherein the replay
score recharges over time back to a value of the profile score.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 14 wherein once the
replay score of the first media item reaches the value of the
profile score, only the profile score for the first media item is
shown in the GUI.
16. A peer device for a peer-to-peer (P2P) media recommendation
system comprising: a communication interface communicatively
coupling the peer device to other peer devices in a P2P network;
and a control system associated with the communication interface
and adapted to: display in a graphical user interface (GUI) of the
media device a representation of a first media item; display a
profile score of the first media item that is based on user
preferences; and display a replay score for the first media item
that affects replay of the first media item.
17. The peer device of claim 16 wherein the profile score and the
replay score are displayed simultaneously.
18. The peer device of claim 16 wherein a plurality of the media
items are displayed in a playlist along with corresponding profile
scores and replay scores.
19. The peer device of claim 18 wherein the media items are sorted
in the playlist based on the profile scores and the replay scores,
wherein the sorting is controlled by the replay scores.
20. The peer device of claim 16 wherein a representation of the
replay score relative to the profile score is displayed for the
first media item.
21. The peer device of claim 20 wherein a graphic representation is
displayed of at least one of the profile score and replay
score.
22. The peer device of claim 21 wherein the graphic representation
includes at least one of a graph and a chart.
23. The peer device of claim 22 wherein the control system is
further adapted to: display a first bar graph of the profile score
relative to a maximum profile score; and display a second bar graph
of the replay score.
24. The peer device of claim 22 wherein a single bar graph is
displayed having a length indicating the profile score and a
subsection indicating the replay score.
25. The peer device of claim 24 wherein the bar graph also displays
numeric values of both the profile score and replay score.
26. The peer device of claim 20 wherein the profile score and
replay score are displayed as text.
27. The peer device of claim 26 wherein the replay score is
displayed as a percentage of the profile score.
28. The peer device of claim 16 wherein in response to each one of
the media items being played, a respective replay score is
calculated for the corresponding media item if the corresponding
media item does not already have a corresponding replay score; and
the replay scores for previously played media items are
recalculated.
29. The peer device of claim 28 wherein the replay score recharges
over time back to a value of the profile score.
30. The peer device of claim 29 wherein once the replay score of
the first media item reaches the value of the profile score, only
the profile score for the first media item is shown in the GUI.
31. An executable software product stored on a computer-readable
medium containing program instructions for visually indicating a
replay status of media items on a media device, the program
instructions for: displaying in a graphical user interface (GUI) of
the media device a representation of a first media item; displaying
a profile score of the first media item that is based on user
preferences; and displaying a replay score for the first media item
that affects replay of the first media item.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0001] In recent years, there has been an enormous increase in the
amount of digital media, such as music, available online. Services
such as Apple's iTunes enable users to legally purchase and
download music. Other services such as Yahoo! Music Unlimited and
RealNetwork's Rhapsody provide access to millions of songs for a
monthly subscription fee. As a result, music has become much more
accessible to listeners worldwide. However, the increased
accessibility of music has only heightened a long-standing problem
for the music industry, which is namely the issue of linking
audiophiles with new music that matches their listening
preferences.
[0002] Many companies, technologies, and approaches have emerged to
address this issue of music recommendation. Some companies have
taken an analytical approach. They review various attributes of a
song, such as melody, harmony, lyrics, orchestration, vocal
character, and the like, and assign a rating to each attribute. The
ratings for each attribute are then assembled to create a holistic
classification for the song that is then used by a recommendation
engine. The recommendation engine typically requires that the user
first identify a song that he or she likes. The recommendation
engine then suggests other songs with similar attributions.
Companies using this type of approach include Pandora, SoundFlavor,
MusicIP, and MongoMusic (purchased by Microsoft in 2000).
[0003] Other companies take a communal approach. They make
recommendations based on the collective wisdom of a group of users
with similar musical tastes. These solutions first profile the
listening habits of a particular user and then search similar
profiles of other users to determine recommendations. Profiles are
generally created in a variety of ways such as looking at a user's
complete collection, the playcounts of their songs, their favorite
playlists, and the like. Companies using this technology include
Last.fm, Music Strands, WebJay, Mercora, betterPropaganda, Loomia,
eMusic, musicmatch, genielab, upto11, Napster, and iTunes with its
celebrity playlists.
[0004] The problem with these traditional recommendation systems is
that they fail to consider peer influences. For example, the music
that a particular teenager listens to may be highly influenced by
the music listened to by a group of the teenager's peers, such as
his or her friends. As such, there is a need for a music
recommendation system and method that recommends music to a user
based on the listening habits of a peer group.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0005] The present invention provides a computer-implemented method
and system for visually indicating a replay status of media items
on a media device. Aspects of the method and system include
displaying in a graphical user interface (GUI) of the media device
a representation of a first media item; displaying a profile score
of the first media item that is based on user preferences; and
displaying a replay score for the first media item that affects
replay of the first media item.
[0006] According to the method and system disclosed herein, by
displaying both a profile score as well as a replay score, the user
is given a visual indication of both the user's preferences for the
media item as well as a dynamic indication of the replay status of
the media item, which can change as events and/or time pass.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS
[0007] FIG. 1 illustrates a system incorporating a peer-to-peer
(P2P) network for real time media recommendations according to one
embodiment.
[0008] FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating the operation of the
peer devices of FIG. 1 according to one embodiment.
[0009] FIG. 3 illustrates the system 10' according to a second
embodiment of the present invention.
[0010] FIG. 4 illustrates the operation of the system of FIG. 3
according to one embodiment.
[0011] FIG. 5 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for
automatically selecting media items to play based on
recommendations from peer devices and user preferences according to
one embodiment of the present invention.
[0012] FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary graphical user interface
(GUI) for displaying a playlist for the peer devices including both
local and recommended media items according to an exemplary
embodiment.
[0013] FIG. 7 is a flow diagram illustrating a process for scoring
and controlling the replay of recommended media items using a no
repeat factor according to an exemplary embodiment.
[0014] FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating the GUI displaying the
playlist after the profile score is updated with the replay
score.
[0015] FIG. 9 is a flow diagram illustrating a process for visually
indicating a replay status of media items on a media device.
[0016] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating one embodiment for
displaying the profile score and the replay score in a GUI using a
graphical representation.
[0017] FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating another embodiment for
displaying the profile score and the replay score using a graphical
representation.
[0018] FIG. 12 is a diagram of the GUI displaying a playlist that
has been sorted by a category other than score according to one
embodiment.
[0019] FIG. 13 is a diagram of the GUI displaying a playlist that
has been sorted based on recalculated scores and then by the
category User according to one embodiment.
[0020] FIG. 14 is a block diagram of an exemplary embodiment of the
peer device.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
[0021] The present invention relates to methods and systems for
visually indicating a replay status of media items on a media
device. The following description is presented to enable one of
ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention and is
provided in the context of a patent application and its
requirements. Various modifications to the embodiments and the
generic principles and features described herein will be readily
apparent to those skilled in the art. Thus, the present invention
is not intended to be limited to the embodiments shown, but is to
be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and
features described herein.
[0022] The present invention is mainly described in terms of
particular systems provided in particular implementations. However,
one of ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize that this
method and system will operate effectively in other
implementations. For example, the systems, devices, and networks
usable with the present invention can take a number of different
forms. The present invention will also be described in the context
of particular methods having certain steps. However, the method and
system operate effectively for other methods having different
and/or additional steps not inconsistent with the present
invention.
[0023] FIG. 1 illustrates a system 1 0 incorporating a P2P network
for providing real time media recommendations according to one
embodiment of the present invention. Note that while the exemplary
embodiments focus on song recommendations for clarity and ease of
discussion, the present invention is equally applicable to
providing recommendations for other types of media items, such as
video presentations and slideshows. Exemplary video presentations
are movies, television programs, and the like. In general, the
system 10 includes a number of peer devices 12-16 that are capable
of presenting or playing the media items and which are optionally
connected to a subscription music service 18 via a network 20, such
as, but not limited to, the Internet. Note that while three peer
devices 12-16 are illustrated, the present invention may be used
with any number of two or more peer devices.
[0024] In this embodiment, the peer devices 12-16 are preferably
portable devices such as, but not limited to, portable audio
players, mobile telephones, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), or
the like having audio playback capabilities. However, the peer
devices 12-16 may alternatively be stationary devices such as a
personal computer or the like.
[0025] The peer devices 12-16 include local wireless communication
interfaces (FIG. 14) communicatively coupling the peer devices
12-16 to form a peer-to-peer (P2P) network. The wireless
communication interfaces may provide wireless communication
according to, for example, one of the suite of IEEE 802.11
standards, the Bluetooth standard, or the like. Because the peer
devices 12-16 are capable of presenting or playing media items
whether or not coupled to the P2P network, the peer devices 12-16
may be considered simply as media devices.
[0026] The peer device 12 may include a music player 22, a
recommendation engine 24, and a music collection 26. The music
player 22 may be implemented in software, hardware, or a
combination of hardware and software. In general, the music player
22 operates to play songs from the music collection 26. The
recommendation engine 24 may be implemented in software, hardware,
or a combination of hardware and software. The recommendation
engine 24 may alternatively be incorporated into the music player
22. The music collection 26 includes any number of song files
stored in one or more digital storage units such as, for example,
one or more hard-disc drives, one or more memory cards, internal
Random-Access Memory (RAM), one or more associated external digital
storage devices, or the like.
[0027] In operation, each time a song is played by the music player
22, the recommendation engine 24 operates to provide a
recommendation identifying the song to the other peer devices 14,
16 via the P2P network. The recommendation does not include the
song. In one embodiment, the recommendation may be a recommendation
file including information identifying the song. In addition, as
discussed below in detail, the recommendation engine 24 operates to
programmatically, or automatically, select a next song to be played
by the music player 22 based on the recommendations received from
the other peer devices 14, 16 identifying songs recently played by
the other peer devices 14,16 and user preferences associated with
the user of the peer device 12.
[0028] Like the peer device 12, the peer device 14 includes a music
player 28, a recommendation engine 30, and a music collection 32,
and the peer device 16 includes a music player 34, a recommendation
engine 36, and a music collection 38.
[0029] The subscription music service 18 may be a service hosted by
a server connected to the network 20. Exemplary subscription based
music services that may be modified to operate according to the
present invention are Yahoo! Music Unlimited digital music service
and RealNetwork's Rhapsody digital music service.
[0030] FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating operation of the peer
device 12 according to one embodiment of the present invention.
However, the following discussion is equally applicable to the
other peer devices 14, 16. First, the peer devices 12-16 cooperate
to establish a P2P network (step 200). The P2P network may be
initiated using, for example, an electronic or verbal invitation.
Invitations may be desirable when the user wishes to establish the
P2P network with a particular group of other users, such as his or
her friends. Note that this may be beneficial when the user desires
that the music he or she listens to be influenced only by the songs
listened to by, for example, the user's friends. Invitations may
also be desirable when the number of peer devices within a local
wireless coverage area of the peer device 12 is large. As another
example, the peer device 12 may maintain a "buddy list" identifying
friends of the user of the peer device 12, where the peer device 12
may automatically establish a P2P network with the peer devices of
the users identified by the "buddy list" when the peer devices are
within a local wireless coverage area of the peer device 12.
[0031] Alternatively, the peer device 12 may establish an ad-hoc
P2P network with the other peer devices 14, 16 by detecting the
other peer devices 14, 16 within the local wireless coverage area
of the peer device 12 and automatically establishing the P2P
network with at least a subset of the detected peer devices 14, 16.
In order to control the number of peer devices within the ad-hoc
P2P network, the peer device 12 may compare user profiles of the
users of the other peer devices 14, 16 with a user profile of the
user of the peer device 12 and determine whether to permit the
other peer devices 14, 16 to enter the P2P network based on the
similarities of the user profiles.
[0032] At some point after the P2P network is established, the peer
device 12 plays a song (step 202). Initially, before any
recommendations have been received from the other peer devices 14,
16, the song may be a song from the music collection 26 selected by
the user of the peer device 12. Prior to, during, or after playback
of the song, the recommendation engine 24 sends a recommendation
identifying the song to the other peer devices 14, 16 (step 204).
The recommendation may include, but is not limited to, information
identifying the song such as a Globally Unique Identifier (GUID)
for the song, title of the song, or the like; a Uniform Resource
Locator (URL) enabling other peer devices to obtain the song such
as a URL enabling download or streaming of the song from the
subscription music service 18 or a URL enabling purchase and
download of the song from an e-commerce service; a URL enabling
download or streaming of a preview of the song from the
subscription music service 18 or a similar e-commerce service;
metadata describing the song such as ID3 tags including, for
example, genre, the title of the song, the artist of the song, the
album on which the song can be found, the date of release of the
song or album, the lyrics, and the like.
[0033] The recommendation may also include a list of recommenders
including information identifying each user having previously
recommended the song and a timestamp for each recommendation. For
example, if the song was originally played at the peer device 14
and then played at the peer device 16 in response to a
recommendation from the peer device 14, the list of recommenders
may include information identifying the user of the peer device 14
or the peer device 14 and a timestamp identifying a time at which
the song was played or recommended by the peer device 14, and
information identifying the user of the peer device 16 or the peer
device 16 and a timestamp identifying a time at which the song was
played or recommended by the peer device 16. Likewise, if the peer
device 12 then selects the song for playback, information
identifying the user of the peer device 12 or the peer device 12
and a corresponding timestamp may be appended to the list of
recommenders.
[0034] The peer device 12, and more specifically the recommendation
engine 24, also receives recommendations from the other peer
devices 14, 16 (step 206). The recommendations from the other peer
devices 14, 16 identify songs played by the other peer devices 14,
16. Optionally, the recommendation engine 24 may filter the
recommendations from the other peer devices 14, 16 based on, for
example, user, genre, artist, title, album, lyrics, date of
release, or the like (step 208).
[0035] The recommendation engine 24 then automatically selects a
next song to play from the songs identified by the recommendations
received from the other peer devices 14, 16, optionally songs
identified by previously received recommendations, and one or more
songs from the music collection 26 based on user preferences (step
210). In one embodiment, the recommendation engine 24 considers
only those songs identified by recommendations received since a
previous song selection. For example, if the song played in step
202 was a song selected by the recommendation engine 24 based on
prior recommendations from the peer devices 14, 16, the
recommendation engine 24 may only consider the songs identified in
new recommendations received after the song was selected for
playback in step 202 and may not consider the songs identified in
the prior recommendations. This may be beneficial if the complexity
of the recommendation engine 24 is desired to be minimal such as
when the peer device 12 is a mobile terminal or the like having
limited processing and memory capabilities. In another embodiment,
the recommendation engine 24 may consider all previously received
recommendations, where the recommendations may expire after a
predetermined or user defined period of time.
[0036] As discussed below, the user preferences used to select the
next song to play may include a weight or priority assigned to each
of a number of categories such as user, genre, decade of release,
and location/availability. Generally, location identifies whether
songs are stored locally in the music collection 26; available via
the subscription music service 18; available for download, and
optionally purchase, from an e-commerce service or one of the other
peer devices 14, 16; or are not currently available where the user
may search for the songs if desired. The user preferences may be
stored locally at the peer device 12 or obtained from a central
server via the network 20. If the peer device 12 is a portable
device, the user preferences may be configured on an associated
user system, such as a personal computer, and transferred to the
peer device 12 during a synchronization process. The user
preferences may alternatively be automatically provided or
suggested by the recommendation engine 24 based on a play history
of the peer device 12. In the preferred embodiment discussed below,
the songs identified by the recommendations from the other peer
devices 14, 16 and the songs from the music collection 26 are
scored or ranked based on the user preferences. Then, based on the
scores, the recommendation engine 24 selects the next song to
play.
[0037] Once the next song to play is selected, the peer device 12
obtains the selected song (step 212). If the selected song is part
of the music collection 26, the peer device 12 obtains the selected
song from the music collection 26. If the selected song is not part
of the music collection 26, the recommendation engine 24 obtains
the selected song from the subscription music service 18, an
e-commerce service, or one of the other peer devices 14, 16. For
example, the recommendation for the song may include a URL
providing a link to a source from which the song may be obtained,
and the peer device 12 may obtain the selected song from the source
identified in the recommendation for the song. Once obtained, the
selected song is played and the process repeats (steps
202-212).
[0038] FIG. 3 illustrates the system 10' according to a second
embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, the peer
devices 12'-16' form a P2P network via the network 20 and a proxy
server 40. The peer devices 12'-16' may be any device having a
connection to the network 20 and audio playback capabilities. For
example, the peer devices 12'-16' may be personal computers, laptop
computers, mobile telephones, portable audio players, PDAs, or the
like having either a wired or wireless connection to the network
20. As discussed above with respect to the peer device 12, the peer
device 12' includes music player 22', a recommendation engine 24',
and a music collection 26'. Likewise, the peer device 14' includes
a music player 28', a recommendation engine 30', and a music
collection 32', and the peer device 16' includes a music player
34', a recommendation engine 36', and a music collection 38.
[0039] FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating operation of the
system 10' as shown in FIG. 3. In this example, once the P2P
network is established, the peer device 14' plays a song and, in
response, provides a song recommendation identifying the song to
the peer device 12' via the proxy server 40 (steps 400-404). While
not illustrated for clarity, the peer device 14' also sends the
recommendation for the song to the peer device 16' via the proxy
server 40. The peer device 16' also plays a song and sends a song
recommendation to the peer device 12' via the proxy server 40
(steps 406-410). Again, while not illustrated for clarity, the peer
device 16' also sends the recommendation for the song to the peer
device 14' via the proxy server 40. From this point, the process
continues as discussed above.
[0040] FIG. 5 illustrates a process of automatically selecting a
song to play from the received recommendations and locally stored
songs at the peer device 12' according to one embodiment of the
present invention. However, the following discussion is equally
applicable to the peer devices 12-16 of FIG. 1, as well as the
other peer devices 14'-16' of FIG. 3. First, the user preferences
for the user of the peer device 12' are obtained (step 500). The
user preferences may include a weight or priority assigned to each
of a number of categories such as, but not limited to, user, genre,
decade of release, and location/availability. The user preferences
may be obtained from the user during an initial configuration of
the recommendation engine 24'. In addition, the user preferences
may be updated by the user as desired. The user preferences may
alternatively be suggested by the recommendation engine 24' or the
proxy server 40 based on a play history of the peer device 12'.
Note that proxy server 40 may ascertain the play history of the
peer device 12' by monitoring the recommendations from the peer
device 12' as the recommendations pass through the proxy server 40
on their way to the other peer devices 14'-16'. The user
preferences may be stored locally at the peer device 12' or
obtained from a central server, such as the proxy server 40, via
the network 20.
[0041] Once recommendations are received from the other peer
devices 14'-16', the recommendation engine 24' of the peer device
12' scores the songs identified by the recommendations based on the
user preferences (step 502). The recommendation engine 24' also
scores one or more local songs from the music collection 26' (step
504). The recommendation engine 24' then selects the next song to
play based, at least in part, on the scores of the recommended and
local songs (step 506).
[0042] FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary graphical user interface
(GUI) 42 for displaying a playlist for the peer devices including
both local and recommended media items according to an exemplary
embodiment. In this example, the media items displayed in the
playlist are songs, and information for each song is displayed in
several category fields of the playlist. In this embodiment, the
categories are users, genre, decade, and location/availability, but
it may include other types of categories. In this example, the peer
device 12' plays media items from a playlist that includes a
mixture of items selected by the user of the device (in this case
Hugh) and recommended media items from the user's friends (in this
case Gary, Gene, Mike, and Waymen). The playlist is continually
updated as recommendations are received. Note that the playlist
shows a mixture of the media items that are on the user's machine
(designated by a location Local) and items that have been
recommended from friends (Gary, Gene, Mike, and Waymen) that may
need to be downloaded, or can be streamed from within the music
subscription service 18.
[0043] In this example, both the local and recommended songs are
scored based on the category weights, and sorted according to their
scores. The weights for the categories may be assigned manually by
the user via a GUI of the peer device 12 or a website (e.g.,
subscription music service 18), or assigned based on a user
profile. In an exemplary embodiment, the peer device 12' always
plays the item with the highest score, which in this embodiment is
the song at the top of the playlist.
[0044] Media items can be scored a number of different ways
utilizing various mechanisms and formulas. According to an
exemplary embodiment, one equation for scoring the media items as a
function of the weighted categories (and subcategories) is:
Score=(
1/10)*(1/(WD+WG+WL+WU))*(WD*WDA+WG*WGA+WL*WLA+WU*WUA)*100
where WU is the weight assigned to the user category; WUA is the
weight assigned to the user attribute of the song, which is the
user recommending the song (e.g., Hugh, Gary, Gene, et al); WG is
the weight assigned to the genre category; WGA is the weight
assigned to the genre attribute of the song, which is the genre of
the song (e.g., Alternative, Rock, Jazz, Punk, etc.); WD is the
weight assigned to the decade category; WDA is the weight assigned
to the decade attribute of the song, which is the decade in which
the song or the album associated with the song was released (e.g.,
1960, 1970, etc.); WL is the weight assigned to the
location/availability category; and WLA is the weight assigned to
the location/availability attribute of the song, which is the
location or availability of the song (e.g., Local, Subscription,
Download, etc.).
[0045] As an example, assume that the following weights have been
assigned to the categories as follows:
TABLE-US-00001 User Category 1 Genre Category 7 Decade Category 7
Location/Availability Category 5
Further assume that attributes for the categories have been
assigned weights as follows:
TABLE-US-00002 User Genre Decade Location/Availability Hugh 9
Alternative 8 1950s 2 Local 8 Gary 5 Classic Rock 5 1960s 4
Subscription Network 2 Gene 5 Arena Rock 5 1970s 7 Buy/Download 1
Jazz 5 1980s 9 Find 1 New Wave 2 1990s 5 Punk 4 2000s 5 Dance 2
Country 2
Inserting these weights into the score equation for the song "Say
Hey" in FIG. 6 yields:
Score=( 1/10)*(1/(7+7+5+1))*(7*9+7*8+5*8+1*9)*100
Score=( 1/10)*( 1/20)*(63+56+40+9)*100
Score=( 1/10)*( 1/20)*(168)*100
Score=84
[0046] In the playlist shown in FIG. 6, note that the song "Say
Hey" by "The Tubes" is the first item played in the playlist
because it has the highest score according to the category weights
described above. In one embodiment the score is calculated based on
the category weights in the user's preferences or profile. The
score is referred to hereinafter as a profile score. However, those
with ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize that the
profile score may be based on other factors other than category
weights.
[0047] Scoring and Affecting the Replay of Recommended Media Items
Using a No Repeat Factor
[0048] It would be undesirable to most users if any particular
media item is repeatedly replayed within a short time interval.
However, if the peer device 12' plays the media item with the
highest profile score and the user does not receive any new
recommendations with a higher profile score than the media item
already played, then the peer device 12' could repeatedly play the
same media item, absent a mechanism for altering replay of media
items.
[0049] According to a further aspect of the invention, in response
to each one of the media items being played, the peer device 12'
calculates a respective replay score for the media item that
affects or influences replay of the media item. In one embodiment,
the replay score is calculated at least in part as a function of a
no repeat factor (NRF). The replay scores of the media items can
then be used to sort the media items for playing.
[0050] In one embodiment, the NRF is based on a user settable
value. For example, a weighted no repeat (WNR) category may be
assigned a value of 9 out of 10, meaning that the period between
repeated playings should be longer rather than shorter. In another
embodiment, the NRF may be based on the total number of media items
in the playlist, rather than a fixed WNR.
[0051] FIG. 7 is a flow diagram illustrating a process for scoring
and affecting the replay of recommended media items using a no
repeat factor according to one embodiment. The process assumes that
the recommendation engine 24' has already calculated the profile
scores of each of the media items in the playlist. The process
begins in response to one of the media items being played (step
700), i.e., the song at the top of the playlist, at which time the
recommendation engine 24' calculates a no repeat factor (NRF) for
the media item as a function of the weighted no repeat (WNR) value
(step 702).
[0052] In one embodiment the NRF may be calculated using the
formula:
NRF = MIN ( 10 WNR , LASTREPEAT_INDEX ) 10 WNR ##EQU00001##
where the LastRepeat_Index is preferably based on one or both of a
count of the number of media items played since the last play of
the media item, or a predetermined time period, e.g., 2 hrs, 5 hrs,
1 day, and so on.
[0053] For example, referring to the playlist shown in FIG. 6,
after "Say Hey" has been played, the number of songs since this
song was last played is now 1. Assuming the weighted no repeat
value (WNR) is 9, the NRF can be computed as follows:
No Repeat Factor=Min[10*WNR, LastRepeat_Index]/(10*WNR)
No Repeat Factor=Min[10*9,1]/(10*9)
No Repeat Factor=1/(10*9)
No Repeat Factor=0.0111
[0054] In this embodiment, it should be understood that the
weighted no repeat (WNR) value may be a global variable that
applies equally to each of the user's media items, while the last
repeat index and the corresponding no repeat factor (NRF) may be
different for each of the media items. Each time a media item is
played, the last repeat index is incremented/decremented or
calculated for each of the media items that have already been
played. For example, if the last repeat index is based on the
number of songs played since the last play of the media item, then
the last repeat index is incremented. If the last repeat index is
based on a predetermined time period, then the last repeat index
could be calculated to determine how much time has passed since the
last play of the media item, e.g., based on the difference between
the time the last play occurred and the current time.
[0055] As stated above, in one embodiment the NRF may be based on
the number of media items in the playlist, which is dynamic. In
this embodiment, the WNR can be replaced by the total number of
media items in the playlist, which ensures that each item will not
be repeated based in part until most or all of the other items have
been played. Thus, the NRF scales naturally to the size of the
playlist.
[0056] Next, the recommendation engine 24' calculates a replay
score for the media item (as well as for the other previously
played media items) based on a function of the category weights and
the NRF (step 704). In one embodiment, the replay score may be
computed using the equation:
Replay Score = NRF * ( 1 / 10 ) * ( 1 / ( WD + WG + WL + WU ) ) * (
WD * WDA + WG * WGA + WL * WLA + WU * WUA ) * 100 ##EQU00002##
[0057] Continuing with the example playlist shown in FIG. 6, the
replay score for the song "Say Hey" immediately after it was played
(or while it was playing) and after computation of the NRF would
be:
Replay Score=(0.011)*(
1/10)*(1/(7+7+5+1))*(7*9+7*8+5*8+1*9)*100
Replay Score=(0.011)*( 1/10)*( 1/20)*(63+56+40+9)*100
Replay Score=(0.011)*( 1/10)*( 1/20)*(168)*100
Replay Score=0.9
Replay Score.about.=1
[0058] Referring again to FIG. 7, in one embodiment, the
recommendation engine 24' updates the profile scores of media items
with the corresponding replay scores, and re-orders the playlist
based on the updated profile scores (step 706).
[0059] FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating the GUI 42 displaying the
playlist after the profile score for the song "Say Hey" is updated
with the replay score. Since the song "Say Hey" has a replay score
of 1, and the replay score is used to update the profile score, the
profile score becomes 1, and the song "Say Hey" drops to the bottom
of the playlist, ensuring that the song will not be repeated before
other songs have a chance to play.
[0060] The first aspect of the exemplary embodiment provides a P2P
network for real-time media recommendations in which peer devices
constantly receive recommendations of media items from other peer
devices; intersperses the recommendations with an existing playlist
of media items designated by a user; dynamically calculates both a
profile score of each of the media items according to the user's
preferences, and a replay score for previously played media items
that affects replay of the media items; and uses the replay score
to update the profile score in order to play the media items back
in score order. This embodiment ensures that there are no
repetitions of played media items until the user has had at least
some exposure to other recommended media items in the playlist.
[0061] Visually Indicating a Replay Status of a Media Item
[0062] While the replay score ensures that the user will have some
exposure to other media items in the playlist before repeating the
media items that have already been played, the replay score can
sometimes have the effect of hiding the media items that the user
most likely will enjoy by placing those items at the end of the
playlist. Continuing with the example given above, for instance,
the song "Say Hey" had an original profile score of 84 and was the
highest in the playlist. This means that "Say Hey" was most likely
a song that the user (Hugh) was going to enjoy from the list, given
the category weights that the user entered in the system (this
assumes that the user has set the weights in the system to yield
songs that most closely match his tastes). Once the song has been
played, though, the replay score is calculated, and the song "Say
Hey" has a score of 1. The user might forget that this song was
once at the top of the list, given its current score.
[0063] Accordingly, a further aspect of the present invention
provides a mechanism for visually indicating the replay status of a
media item by letting the user see the original profile score of
the media item as well as the current replay score, as determined,
for example, by the no repeat factor. In this embodiment, the peer
devices 12-16 retain the two scores and provide a GUI to clearly
indicate both pieces of information to the user. By displaying the
replay score, the user is apprised of the replay status of one or
all of the media items.
[0064] FIG. 9 is a flow diagram illustrating a process for visually
indicating a replay status of media items on a media device. The
process begins by displaying the media items in a graphical user
interface (GUI) of the media device (step 900). As shown in FIGS. 6
and 8, in the exemplary embodiment, the GUI displays the media
items in a playlist, which are represented by text information,
such as song title. However, the media items could also be
displayed with graphical representations, such as icons and/or
pictures (e.g., album covers).
[0065] As also described above, the profile scores of the media
items that are calculated based on user preferences are also
displayed in the GUI 42 (step 902). However, according to this
embodiment, the GUI 42 can also display the replay scores for the
media items that affect the replay of the media items (step 904).
As described above, the replay scores can be based on corresponding
no repeat factors (NRF), which in turn, can be derived from either
a predetermined time period and/or a count of media items that have
been played since the first media item was last played.
[0066] The media items are sorted in the playlist based on the
replay scores (step 906). In one embodiment, all media items in the
playlist are provided with replay scores whether or not the media
item has been played, with the initial values for replay scores
being set equal to the profile score of the corresponding media
item. In another embodiment, all the media items have a profile
score, but replay scores are only calculated after the
corresponding media items have been played. In this case, the
sorting can be controlled by the replay scores for previously
played media items that have respective replay scores, and by the
profile score for the media items that have not yet been played on
the peer device and only have profile scores (step 906). As a
practical matter, during operation of the peer device, the sorting
of the playlist (step 906) may occur prior to display of the
playlist (steps 902-904).
[0067] Based on the above, it should become apparent that the
profile score is a relatively fixed value that is determined
through the interaction of the user's profile/preferences with a
given media item. However, the replay score is a dynamic value that
will normally range between, but is not limited to, a maximum of
the profile score and a lesser value determined by the no repeat
factor (NRF).
[0068] There are several embodiments for indicating both the
profile score and the replay score for each media item. In one
embodiment, a representation of the replay score relative to the
profile score is displayed in association with the media item.
[0069] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating one embodiment for
displaying the profile score and the replay score in a GUI using a
graphical representation. In this embodiment, the profile score
1000 and replay score 1002 are shown displayed using bar graphs.
One bar graph displays the profile score 1000 relative to a maximum
profile score 1004 (e.g., max. 100), and a second bar graph
displays the replay score 1002 relative to the profile score 1000.
In this example, the second bar graph is shown having a length that
indicates the profile score 1000 and a shaded subsection that
indicates the replay score 1002. In addition, the second bar graph
is also shown to display numeric values for both the profile score
1000 and replay score 1002, e.g., "1 of 84".
[0070] FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating another embodiment for
displaying the profile score 1000 and the replay score 1002 using a
graphical representation. In this embodiment, the profile score
1000 and the replay score 1002 are displayed in the single bar
graph of FIG. 10 that shows both the profile score 1000 and the
replay score 1002, which makes it suitable for display in the
playlist GUI 42 next to each media item.
[0071] Although bar graphs have been described for graphically
illustrating the profile score 1000 and the replay score 1002, the
profile score 1000 and the replay score 1002 could be displayed
using other graphic representations, such as a pie chart. The
profile score 1000 and the replay score 1002 may also be displayed
with just text information. For example, the replay score 1002 may
be displayed as a percentage of the profile score, such as 4.5%,
for instance.
[0072] Referring again to FIG. 9, the calculation of the NRF is
such that the replay score 1002 for a particular media item is
allowed to recharge back to the value of the profile score 1000 as
media items are played and/or time passes (step 908) with a
corresponding display in the display of the scores. For example, as
shown in FIG. 11, four songs have played since the first playing of
the song "Say Hey", and the replay score 1002 for the song has
increased accordingly from an initial value of 1 to a current value
of 5.
[0073] Referring again to FIG. 9, once the replay score 1002 of the
media item reaches the value of the profile score 1000, only the
profile score 1000 for the media item is shown in the GUI (step
910).
[0074] Given the above description of the profile and replay scores
1002, it should be apparent that the exemplary embodiments cover
alternative embodiments that include a wider range of category
weightings and accompanying profile scores 1000 and presentation
factors controlling playback beyond the no repeat factor (NRF),
such as for example, a methodology that attempts to force play back
of a media item based solely on time, such as at least once per
week or alternatively, no more often than once per day. Also,
although described in terms of a P2P media recommendation
environment, the exemplary embodiments may be applied to media
devices in traditional client/server environments as well.
[0075] Sorting Recommended Media Items in a Scored Playlist
[0076] One purpose of the P2P networked media recommendation system
10 is to provide a music discovery mechanism for the user. While
one purpose of creating a playlist of recommendations is the
creation of a musical journey for the user, it is entirely possible
that users of the media recommendation system 10 may want to sort
on different categories as a means to quickly peruse the
recommendations that have been received from their peers. For
example, maybe the user Hugh would like to quickly see how many
recommendations have been received by a particular friend (Waymen)
and the associated scores 1000 and 1002 of such media items.
[0077] FIG. 12 is a diagram of the GUI 42 displaying a playlist
that has been sorted by a category other than score according to
one embodiment. Sorting in this fashion can pose a potential
problem for the media recommendation system 10 since the media
recommendation system 10 is designed to play the first media item
in the sorted playlist. If the user sorts by some column other than
score, then it is possible the peer devices 12-16 will begin
playing media items that are either (1) not the media items most
likely to match the user's tastes or (2) may be media items that
have already been played before (thereby eliminating the music
discovery aspects of the application).
[0078] According to a further aspect of the exemplary embodiment,
embodiments for sorting the playlist are provided that maintain the
system's purpose as a media discovery device by accepting media
recommendations from a user's peers and by ranking those
recommendations for playback by score, but also allows the user to
indicate a sort critera other than score. The media items are then
sorted for playback based on a combination of both the score and
the indicated sort criteria.
[0079] In one embodiment, the peer devices 12-16 permit the sorting
of the playlist by different category columns, but only subordinate
to a sort by score. In this embodiment, each of the media items
include a profile score 1000 and a replay score 1002. First, the
peer devices 12-16 automatically sort the media items in the
playlist by the replay scores 1002. As stated above, the replay
score 1002 may be set equal to the profile score 1000 for the media
items that have yet to be played. Second, the peer devices 12-16
sort the media items by a sort criteria indicated by a user. For
example, if the user wants to sort on the User column, then the
peer devices 12-16 perform a double sort where the media items in
the playlist are first sorted by the profile and replay scores and
then by User. Finally, the playlist is displayed and the media
items in the playlist are played according to the sort order. The
steps of sorting and displaying the playlist are not necessarily
order dependent.
[0080] In a second embodiment, the peer devices 12-16 permit the
user to sort the playlist by category columns other than score
first and then sort by score second. In this embodiment, the peer
devices 12-16 first sort the media items by a sort criteria
indicated by a user. For example, the user may select a particular
category to sort on by clicking one of the category columns in the
playlist. Thereafter, the peer devices 12-16 sort the media items
by the score associated with each of the media items, e.g., the
profile and replay scores 1000 and 1002, and displays the sorted
playlist. To preserve the integrity of the recommendation engine 24
as a music discovery device, the media items in the playlist are
played according to sort order, but the media items that have
already been played (as indicated by a corresponding replay score
1002), are automatically skipped.
[0081] In this particular case, the playlist would look similar to
that of FIG. 12, which shows an example playlist that has been
sorted by User first, and then sorted by score second. However, in
this embodiment as songs are played by moving down the playlist,
songs that have already been played are automatically skipped.
Notice that in this embodiment, the media item being played is not
necessarily the first item in the playlist, as in the case where
the first media item is a replay score.
[0082] In a third embodiment, the peer devices 12-16 permit the
user to sort the playlist by category columns other than score, but
adjust the weight of the selected category so that the selected
category has a greater weight than the other categories listed by
the user. In response to receiving the user's selection of sort
criteria, such as selecting a particular category to sort on by
clicking one of the category columns in the playlist, a user
preference associated with the sort criteria is changed. As
described above, user preferences used to select the next song to
play may include a weight assigned to each of a number of
categories, such as user, genre, decade of release, and
location/availability. The category weights are then used to score
or rank the media items from the music collection 26.
[0083] As an example, suppose the user chooses to sort the playlist
by User. Then, in this embodiment, the User weight (WU) may be
increased automatically from its initial value of 1 (see FIG. 8) to
near a maximum value, such as 9 for instance, thereby making it a
dominant force in the user's preferences and calculation of the
profile score 1000.
[0084] After the user preference associated with the sort criteria
is changed, the profile score 1000 and any existing replay score
1002 are recalculated. The media items in the playlist are then
first sorted by the recalculated replay scores 1002, as described
above, and then sorted by the sort criteria selected by the user,
e.g., by the category User. The sorted playlist is displayed and
the media items are played in the playlist according to sort
order.
[0085] FIG. 13 is a diagram of the GUI 42 displaying a playlist
that has been sorted based on recalculated scores and then by the
User category according to one embodiment. Because of the change in
the weight assigned to the user category, the media items now have
slightly different profile and replay scores 1000 and 1002.
[0086] FIG. 14 is a block diagram of an exemplary embodiment of the
peer device 12' of FIG. 3. However, the following discussion is
equally applicable to the other peer devices 14'-16', as well as
peer devices 12-16 of FIG. 1. In general, the peer device 12'
includes a control system 154 having associated memory 156. In this
example, the music player 22' and the recommendation engine 24' are
at least partially implemented in software and stored in the memory
156. The peer device 12' also includes a storage unit 158 operating
to store the music collection 26' (FIG. 3). The storage unit 158
may be any number of digital storage devices such as, for example,
one or more hard-disc drives, one or more memory cards, RAM, one or
more external digital storage devices, or the like. The music
collection 26' may alternatively be stored in the memory 156. The
peer device 12' also includes a communication interface 160. The
communication interface 160 includes a network interface
communicatively coupling the peer device 12' to the network 20
(FIG. 3). The peer device 12' also includes a user interface 162,
which may include components such as a display, speakers, a user
input device, and the like.
[0087] The present invention provides substantial opportunity for
variation without departing from the spirit or scope of the present
invention. For example, while FIG. 1 illustrates the peer devices
12-16 forming the P2P network via local wireless communication and
FIG. 3 illustrates the peer devices 12'-16' forming the P2P network
via the network 20, the present invention is not limited to either
a local wireless P2P network or a WAN P2P network in the
alternative. More specifically, a particular peer device, such as
the peer device 12, may form a P2P network with other peer devices
using both local wireless communication and the network 20. Thus,
for example, the peer device 12 may receive recommendations from
both the peer devices 14, 16 (FIG. 1) via local wireless
communication and from the peer devices 14'-16' (FIG. 3) via the
network 20.
[0088] A method and system for visually indicating a replay status
of media items on a media device has been disclosed. The present
invention has been described in accordance with the embodiments
shown, and one of ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize
that there could be variations to the embodiments that would be
within the spirit and scope of the present invention. For example,
the present invention can be implemented using hardware, software,
a computer readable medium containing program instructions, or a
combination thereof. Software written according to the present
invention is to be either stored in some form of computer-readable
medium such as memory or CD-ROM, or is to be transmitted over a
network, and is to be executed by a processor. Consequently, a
computer-readable medium is intended to include a computer readable
signal, which may be, for example, transmitted over a network.
Accordingly, many modifications may be made by one of ordinary
skill in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the
appended claims.
* * * * *